Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
66 online now:
Coragyps, jar, PaulK (3 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,259 Year: 5,007/23,288 Month: 128/1,784 Week: 15/211 Day: 15/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 30 of 100 (690592)
02-14-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by kofh2u
02-14-2013 1:09 AM


Re: I agree with that...
quote:

A curriculum designed to describe the history of the science related to cosmic evolution needs to be fair enough to emphasis that Genesis was the lone and sole claimant for a Big Bang in days when men puzzled over the possibility of a Static Universe that had always existed.

You have an odd idea of fairness. Perhaps we should rather mention the fact that Genesis starts with the primordial ocean, typical of Middle Eastern creation myths.

quote:

And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.

Which is hardly surprising.

quote:

It also should be emphasized that Gen 1:9 noted correctly that once "all the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place" called the Panthalassic Ocean, "and the dry land appeared," which was called Pangea.

You mean INcorrectly. There was dry land before there were large bodies of water.

quote:

It also is scientifically true that no visible light was present at the moment of the big bang beginning, but there was a delay of 400 million years, until the universe cooled down.
Then the First Cause said let there be light.

Science says nothing about a First Cause acting AFTER the beginning of our universe to create light, in fact it says that there was no need for that at all. Never mind that your interpretation starts with the accretion disk that became the Earth already existing, which is much later!

quote:

Whatever criticism the course might raise against the speculatins of the Bible writers, in all fairness, these few correct "hypothesis" did turn out to be true.

Honesty compels me to point out that three out of four have NOT turned out to be true.

quote:

The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.

Then we're agreed that you're part of the problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 1:09 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:42 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 35 of 100 (690700)
02-15-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kofh2u
02-15-2013 11:42 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

Genesis clearly can and ought be read with the choice to understand it as corresponding with what we now know, rather than deciding to misinterpret the literal statements just to choose to make if seem false and non-factual.

In other words, since Genesis 1 is badly wrong, it is necessary to misrepresent it to pretend that it is right.

But even your misrepresentations obviously fail. Any knowledgable person would know that the Earth did NOT exist, even as an accretion disk, until many billions of years after the "Cosmic Dark Age".

quote:

You can protest and even argue that the christians who are not theistic evolutioists say different, but an honest, fair minded read would have to admit this is a valid correspondence when examined the way written above... not that many intellectual oriented people care about honesty, of course.

Any honest and informed person can see that your "interpretation" is grossly strained, lacking support from the text, and far from scientifically accurate - and they will say so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 02-15-2013 11:42 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:30 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 40 of 100 (690862)
02-17-2013 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kofh2u
02-16-2013 7:30 PM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form

I wouldn't call a quark-gluon plasma "solid", and that's about as close as you'll get to normal matter close to the Big Bang.

quote:

This changed as even the sun and the stars were intially accreation disks themselves, slowly cooling and taking the spherical form.

I think that there is a huge difference between the existence - in some form - of the matter that would eventually form the accretion disk which became the Earth, and the accretion disk itself existing.

quote:

But you do seem to recognize the uncanny correctness of a 400 million year cooling down era where darkness existed just as the Bible reports.

You'd have to be outright insane to believe that. Even if the end of the Cosmic Dark Age represented a real creation of light it wouldn't be similar enough to deserve to be called a coincidence. But it doesn't.

quote:

These first 5 verse enumerate ideas that were not even suspect in 1362BC, and the Big Bang beginning was a shot in the dark by the Biboe writers who would have lost this whole debate for me had they said what was the politically correct point of view until 1940, that the cosmos has always been there.

No, they're just another creation myth with no relationship to modern science. That's why you have to add so much to what they say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 7:30 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:31 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 44 of 100 (690873)
02-17-2013 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 7:31 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

That is what I also said,... "void in... solid form."

That seems to mean that it was a void and had a solid form somehow... Which really doesn't make much sense.

quote:

I use bracketed comments so people can see how I explain the statement in context.

Yes, and we can see just how far you go beyond the text.

quote:

You would have to be blind to miss the correspondences with the Big Bang as a beginning, and the uncanny truth about Cosmic Darkness, as stated way back, in 1362BC.

When we see that the "coincidences" are almost entirely contained in your parenthetical comments then it doesn't look uncanny at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 7:31 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 8:46 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 46 of 100 (690886)
02-17-2013 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by kofh2u
02-17-2013 8:46 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

Lame.

You are just repeating your position which is simply to oppose me.


Alternatively your phrasing really is confusing.

quote:

That I told you the Plasma state of the Cosmos contained the elementary matter right from the first split second which would solidify, and though then void of geometric shape, take form from the formlessness and become recognizable as stars and at some point, the Earth.

In other words you were completely wrong to talk about the accretion disk which no more existed at that point than the modern planet did.

quote:

That you can and do decide to ignore this valid understanding of what the first two verses in genesis means is simply your choice, with the intention of disparaging the bible, instead of granting my description is more valid than your own interpretations.

Given that your "valid understanding" contradicts itself, rather demonstrates that you are simply trying to fit your limited understanding of science to the text.

quote:

In other words, you CAN and DO insist that your way of explaining the two verses serves your argument, while subjectively attempting to disqualify any other interpretation of "In the beginning"...

I haven't commented on the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning". However, obviously a correct understanding of the verses cannot be reached by trying to force-fit them to a preferred meaning.

quote:

Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.

I think that you mean "intellectually honest", since that, at least is not an accusation that could be more justifiably thrown your way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kofh2u, posted 02-17-2013 8:46 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 11:59 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 53 of 100 (690958)
02-18-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 11:59 AM


Re: all four are true...
quote:

You apparently infer some point in time from the simple true statement that in the beginning all matter that now occupies the heavens included the Earth.

"In the beginning" is a temporal reference. But your statement is false because at the beginning there is nothing that can reasonably be called "the Earth"

quote:

If you use my inferences, then Genesis is straight forth correct.

It wasn't when you "inferred" that "without form and void" referred to the accretion disk.

And that is a very clear indication that your "inferences" owe far more to modern science than they do to the text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 11:59 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:43 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16056
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 58 of 100 (691009)
02-19-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 6:43 PM


Re: In the beginning of time is temporal indeed.
quote:

1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.

Apparently telling the truth about your methods is considered "trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis". I have to point out the fact that neither you, nor your methodology are in Genesis.

quote:

If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.

Well that would be you in insisting that "in the beginning" did NOT refer to a particular time.

And of course, the fact that Genesis claims that the ocean existed at the beginning would rather negate any idea that it was intended to refer to any modern understanding of the existence of our universe. It would, however, work perfectly well in the time and place that Genesis 1 was written. Now these considerations are VALID considerations when interpreting Genesis 1 honestly. Your method of simply trying to find vague correspondences so that you can claim that the Bible is correct is both invalid and dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 6:43 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020